Structural Polymer Group, Ltd. v. Zoltek Corp.

543 F.3d 987 (8th Cir. 2008)

Facts

D manufactures and sells carbon fiber. P manufactures prepreg, a common substitute for fiberglass. D promised to manufacture and sell to P all of P's requirements between November 6, 2000, and December 31, 2010. P promised to 'obtain their total requirements for suitable quality, in the reasonable opinion of P, Carbon Fibers from D,' the volume not to exceed 'the amount actually purchased by P in the preceding Contract Year plus one million (1,000,000) pounds.' 'Large Filament Count,' or large-tow carbon fiber, contains 48,000 or more filaments per bundle. 'Small-tow' carbon fiber, by contrast, contains fewer than 48,000 filaments per bundle, commonly 24,000 or fewer filaments per bundle. Small-tow is more expensive to produce but superior in quality. The purpose of the agreement was to develop a new market for large-tow fiber as a less expensive alternative to small-tow fiber in the wind-energy industry. The dispute, in this case, centers on two orders that P placed with D in 2005 and 2006 that were never filled. P ordered 1,480,138 pounds of Panex 35 in 2005 and claims that it was entitled to 2,480,138 pounds of Panex 35 in 2006. P sued D for breach of contract alleging lost profits. A jury awarded P lost profits under both counts through December 31, 2006, but declined to award P future lost profits. The district court vacated the award under Count II as duplicative, giving P a final sum of $ 21,138,518. D filed motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) for a new trial, and under Rule 50(b) for judgment as a matter of law, in connection with both the liability and damages phases of the proceedings, and the district court denied both motions. D appeals the district court's denial of those motions. P cross-appeals the district court's vacation of the jury's award under Count II of the complaint. D sought to claim that the Supply Agreement was void for lack of mutuality of obligation.